Rather Be Healthy

By Dr. Mercola

If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise probably isn’t at the top of your list. However, there is compelling evidence that exercise can not only help slash your risk of cancer, but can also help cancer patients get well sooner, and help prevent cancer recurrence.

Research has also shown it may help minimize the side effects of conventional cancer treatment.

A preliminary study presented at The Integrative Biology of Exercise VI meeting in mid-October1 helps shed light on why exercise is so effective for decreasing the risk of secondary cancers in survivors, or why it can decrease your risk of getting cancer in the first place.

Exercise Improves Your Immune System’s “Cancer Surveillance”

Sixteen cancer survivors who had just completed chemotherapy participated in the three-month long study. The fitness program, which was tailored to each individual, included:
•Strength training
•Endurance training
•Cardiovascular exercise
•Exercises for flexibility, balance and posture

The researchers examined the immune cells in the participants’ blood before and after completion of the 12-week program, and the analysis showed that a large portion of the T cells were altered into a more effective disease-fighting form, called “naïve” T cells. As reported by Medical News Today:2

“[Lead researcher] Bilek explained, ‘What we’re suggesting is that with exercise, you might be getting rid of T cells that aren’t helpful and making room for T cells that might be helpful.’

This research is important because it not only emphasizes the advantages of exercise for cancer patients and cancer survivors, but it also demonstrates how it can benefit healthy individuals. However, the increased ‘cancer surveillance,’ or the power of the immune system to stop emerging cancers, is particularly beneficial for those struggling with cancer, or who have just survived it.

Bilek concluded: ‘There’s a litany of positive benefits from exercise. If exercise indeed strengthens the immune system and potentially improves cancer surveillance, it’s one more thing we should educate patients about as a reason they should schedule regular activity throughout their day and make it a priority in their lives.'”

Viewing Exercise as a Drug

Besides altering your immune cells into a more potent disease-fighting form and improving circulation of those immune cells in your blood, another primary way exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels. This creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells. It’s also been suggested that apoptosis (programmed cell death) is triggered by exercise, causing cancer cells to die.

The trick though, is understanding how to use exercise as a precise tool. I like to suggest viewing it as a “drug” that needs to be carefully prescribed to achieve its maximum benefit. This ensures you’re getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength, flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels.

Ideally, doctors would prescribe exercise in specific “doses” and intervals. To do this properly, oncologists would be wise to develop relationships with personal trainers, and prescribe training sessions for their patients. If you have cancer, I would highly recommend discussing exercise with your oncologist, and/or work with a trained fitness professional who can help you devise a safe and effective regimen.

Unfortunately, many public health guidelines still focus only on the aerobic aspects of exercise, and this exclusive focus can lead to imbalances that may actually prevent optimal health.

It’s important to include a large variety of techniques in your exercise routine, such as strength training, aerobics, core-building activities, and stretching. Most important of all, however, is to make sure you include high-intensity, burst-type exercise, once or twice a week, in which you raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold for 20 to 30 seconds, and then you recover for 90 seconds. These exercises can increase your body’s natural production of human growth hormone.

Compelling Evidence in Support of Exercise as Cancer Prophylactic

In the 1980s the notion that exercise may help prevent cancer started getting its due attention. According to a study published 12 years ago in the British Medical Journal,3 which explored the relationship between exercise and cancer, exercise affects several biological functions that may directly influence your cancer risk. These effects include changes in:

Cardiovascular capacity

Energy balance

Pulmonary capacity

Immune function

Bowel motility

Antioxidant defense

Hormone levels

DNA repair

In 2003, a paper in the journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise4 reported that “more than a hundred epidemiologic studies on the role of physical activity and cancer prevention have been published.” The authors noted that:

“The data are clear in showing that physically active men and women have about a 30-40 percent reduction in the risk of developing colon cancer, compared with inactive persons … With regard to breast cancer, there is reasonably clear evidence that physically active women have about a 20-30 percent reduction in risk, compared with inactive women. It also appears that 30-60 min·d-1 of moderate- to vigorous-intensity physical activity is needed to decrease the risk of breast cancer, and that there is likely a dose-response relation.”

Cancer Groups Recommend Making Exercise Part of Standard Care

In recent years, a number of cancer groups have started taking exercise seriously. For example, a recent report issued by the British organization Macmillan Cancer Support5 argues that exercise really should be part of standard cancer care. It recommends that all patients getting cancer treatment should be told to engage in moderate-intensity exercise for two and a half hours every week, stating that the advice to rest and take it easy after treatment is an outdated view.

The organization offers loads of helpful information about the benefits of exercise for cancer patients on their website, and also has a number of videos on the subject, available on their YouTube channel.6

Professor Robert Thomas discusses the benefits of physical activity during after cancer treatment.

According to Ciaran Devane, chief executive of Macmillan Cancer Support:7

“Cancer patients would be shocked if they knew just how much of a benefit physical activity could have on their recovery and long term health, in some cases reducing their chances of having to go through the grueling ordeal of treatment all over again…”

Indeed, the reduction in risk for recurrence is quite impressive. Previous research has shown that breast and colon cancer patients who exercise regularly have half the recurrence rate than non-exercisers.8 Macmillan Cancer Support also notes that exercise can help you to mitigate some of the common side effects of conventional cancer treatment, including:

Reduce fatigue and improve your energy levels

Manage stress, anxiety, low mood or depression

Improve bone health

Improve heart health (some chemotherapy drugs and radiotherapy can cause heart problems later in life)

Build muscle strength, relieve pain and improve range of movement

Maintain a healthy weight

Sleep better

Improve your appetite

Prevent constipation

Exercise Tips for Cancer Patients

I would strongly recommend you read up on my Peak Fitness program, which includes high-intensity exercises that can reduce your exercise time while actually improving your benefits.

Now, if you have cancer or any other chronic disease, you will of course need to tailor your exercise routine to your individual circumstances, taking into account your fitness level and current health. Often, you will be able to take part in a regular exercise program — one that involves a variety of exercises like strength training, core-building, stretching, aerobic and anaerobic — with very little changes necessary. However, at times you may find you need to exercise at a lower intensity, or for shorter durations.

Always listen to your body and if you feel you need a break, take time to rest.

Just remember that exercising for just a few minutes a day is better than not exercising at all, and you’ll likely find that your stamina increases and you’re able to complete more challenging workouts with each passing day. In the event you are suffering from a very weakened immune system, you may want to exercise at home instead of visiting a public gym. But remember that exercise will ultimately help to boost your immune system, so it’s very important to continue with your program, even if you suffer from chronic illness or cancer.

That said, if your body will not allow you to exercise, either due to pain or worsening of your underlying condition, then you have no practical option but to honor your body’s signals and exercise less. Even though your body desperately needs the exercise to improve, you will only get worse if you violate your current limitations.

Protein Intake Also Crucial for Cancers

I recently interviewed Dr. Ron Rosedale for nearly fifteen hours and i hope to be able to start posting those articles very soon. He is one of the first physicians in the U.S. that started measuring leptin levels clinically and was far ahead of the curve on this one. In our interview, he helped me understand the major importance that excessive protein intake can have on cancer growth.

The mTOR pathway is short for mammalian target of rapamycin. This pathway is ancient but relatively recently appreciated and has only been known for less than 20 years. Odds are very high your doctor was never taught this is medical school and isn’t even aware of it. Many new cancer drugs are actually being targeted to use this pathway. Drugs using this pathway have also been given to animals to radically extend their lifespan. But you don’t have to use drugs to get this pathway to work for you.

You can biohack your body and merely restrict your protein intake and replace the decreased protein with healthy fats as this will provide virtually identical benefits as these dangerous and expensive drugs.

Eating excessive protein can be an additional synergistically powerful mechanism. Dr. Rosedale believes that when you consume protein in levels higher than one gram of protein per kilogram of LEAN body mass you can activate the mTOR pathway, which will radically increase your risk of cancers. It is very easy to consume excess protein and my guess is that most people reading this are. I know I was, and as a result of this new insight I have reduced my protein intake by about half.

To determine your lean body mass find out your percent body fat and subtract from 100. So if you are 20% body fat you would have 80% lean body mass. Just multiply that times your current weight to get lean body mass. For most people this means restricting protein intake from 35 to 75 grams. Pregnant women and those working out extensively need about 25% more protein though.

Of course when you reduce protein you need to replace it with other calories, so the key is to replace the lost calories with high-quality fats such as avocados, butter, coconut oil, olives, olive oil, nuts and eggs. It is also very helpful to avoid eating anything for three hours before going to bed as this allows you to have relatively low blood sugars while you are sleeping. This is another good trick to move your body to fat burning mode.

Nearly everyone is primarily in carb burning mode because of the amount of carbohydrate content that they consume. The beauty of shifting over to fat burning mode is that it virtually eliminates hunger. Intermittent fasting is one way to help achieve this, but radically cutting back on non-vegetable carbs is also very important. Coconut oil is particularly useful to use in making the transition to fat burning mode as it is primarily short and medium chain fats which break down very quickly and can be used as an energy source which is important for countering the decreased energy and other physical challenges that many encounter in the several weeks it typically takes to make the transition to fat burning mode .

Cancer Prevention Begins with Your Lifestyle Choices

While exercise is an important facet of cancer prevention and treatment, it’s certainly not the only one. I believe the vast majority of all cancers could be prevented by strictly applying the healthy lifestyle recommendations below:
•Avoid sugar, especially fructose. All forms of sugar are detrimental to health in general and promote cancer. Fructose, however, is clearly one of the most harmful and should be avoided as much as possible.
•Optimize your vitamin D. Vitamin D influences virtually every cell in your body and is one of nature’s most potent cancer fighters. Vitamin D is actually able to enter cancer cells and trigger apoptosis (cell death). If you have cancer, your vitamin D level should be between 70 and 100 ng/ml. Vitamin D works synergistically with every cancer treatment I’m aware of, with no adverse effects. I suggest you try watching my one-hour free lecture on vitamin D to learn more.
•Limit your protein. Newer research has emphasized the importance of the mTOR pathways. When these are active, cancer growth is accelerated. The best way to quiet this pathway is by limiting your protein to one gram of protein per kilogram of lean body weight, or roughly a bit less than half a gram of protein per every pound of lean body weight. For most people this ranges between 40 and 70 grams of protein a day, which is about 2/3 to half of what they are currently eating.
•Avoid unfermented soy products. Unfermented soy is high in plant estrogens, or phytoestrogens, also known as isoflavones. In some studies, soy appears to work in concert with human estrogen to increase breast cell proliferation, which increases the chances for mutations and cancerous cells.
•Improve your insulin and leptin receptor sensitivity. The best way to do this is by avoiding sugar and grains and restricting carbs to mostly fiber vegetables. Also making sure you are exercising, especially with Peak Fitness.
•Maintain a healthy body weight. This will come naturally when you begin eating right for your nutritional type and exercising. It’s important to lose excess body fat because fat produces estrogen.
•Drink a pint to a quart of organic green vegetable juice daily. Please review my juicing instructions for more detailed information.
•Get plenty of high quality animal-based omega-3 fats, such as krill oil. Omega-3 deficiency is a common underlying factor for cancer.
•Curcumin. This is the active ingredient in turmeric and in high concentrations can be very useful adjunct in the treatment of cancer. For example, it has demonstrated major therapeutic potential in preventing breast cancer metastasis.9 It’s important to know that curcumin is generally not absorbed that well, so I’ve provided several absorption tips here.
•Avoid drinking alcohol, or at least limit your alcoholic drinks to one per day.
•Avoid electromagnetic fields as much as possible. Even electric blankets can increase your cancer risk.
•Avoid synthetic hormone replacement therapy, especially if you have risk factors for breast cancer. Breast cancer is an estrogen-related cancer, and according to a study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, breast cancer rates for women dropped in tandem with decreased use of hormone replacement therapy. (There are similar risks for younger women who use oral contraceptives. Birth control pills, which are also comprised of synthetic hormones, have been linked to cervical and breast cancers.)

If you are experiencing excessive menopausal symptoms, you may want to consider bioidentical hormone replacement therapy instead, which uses hormones that are molecularly identical to the ones your body produces and do not wreak havoc on your system. This is a much safer alternative.
•Avoid BPA, phthalates and other xenoestrogens. These are estrogen-like compounds that have been linked to increased breast cancer risk
•Make sure you’re not iodine deficient, as there’s compelling evidence linking iodine deficiency with certain forms of cancer. Dr. David Brownstein10, author of the book Iodine: Why You Need It, Why You Can’t Live Without It, is a proponent of iodine for breast cancer. It actually has potent anticancer properties and has been shown to cause cell death in breast and thyroid cancer cells.

For more information, I recommend reading Dr. Brownstein’s book. I have been researching iodine for some time ever since I interviewed Dr. Brownstein as I do believe that the bulk of what he states is spot on. However, I am not at all convinced that his dosage recommendations are correct. I believe they are too high.
•Avoid charring your meats. Charcoal or flame broiled meat is linked with increased breast cancer risk. Acrylamide—a carcinogen created when starchy foods are baked, roasted or fried—has been found to increase cancer risk as well.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

A U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) committee dominated by representatives from the biotechnology industry, seed companies, and academia has decided to make an official recommendation to the public agency that organic farmers be forced to bear financially responsible for the genetic contamination of their own organic crops by genetically-modified (GM) crops.

The USDA Advisory Committee on Biotechnology & 21st Century Agriculture, also known as AC21, is largely of the persuasion that agricultural coexistence means organic farmers should have to foot the bill when their fields are destroyed by unintentional GMO drift. According to an advisory report recently issued by the committee, this means requiring that organic farmers purchase their own crop insurance to pay for potential damages resulting from transgenic contamination.

“Of particular concern in the report is the recommendation that organic and non-GE conventional farmers pay to self-insure themselves against unwanted GE contamination,” said a recent statement issued by the National Organic Coalition (NOC). “This proposal allows USDA and the agricultural biotechnology industry to abdicate responsibility for preventing GE contamination while making the victims of GE pollution pay for damages resulting from transgenic contamination.”

Organic and conventional farmers have long had to deal with the threat of transgenic contamination from nearby GM crop fields, the pollen of which occasionally drifts or is carried by bees into organic crop fields. In the past, violated farmers have had to basically suck up their resultant losses, or even face litigation from the company whose seed materials trespassed onto their properties.

Real coexistence between GMOs, organic crops is impossible
The contamination issue has become so problematic in recent years that a number of industry groups have tried to pursue so-called coexistence measures that, in some sort of alternate universe, would allow GMOs, conventional crops, and organic crops to peacefully coexist in harmony with one another. But as anyone with any knowledge of GM crops already knows, it is virtually impossible to contain GMOs and prevent their eventual spread.

With this in mind, AC21 seems fully aware of the fact that GMO spread and contamination is inevitable. Its solution to the problem; however, is not to restrain GMOs in any way, but rather to set them free and leave it to organic farmers to clean up the mess. And this, of course, is the apparent position of the federal government as well, which continues to unleash new and unnecessary GMOs like Monsanto’s GM alfalfa into the wild without any concern for the irreversible damage this will cause.

“We urgently need meaningful regulatory change that institutionalizes mandatory GE contamination prevention practices,” added the NOC about the inherent failures of the committee proposal. “USDA needs to stop dragging its heels, get serious and focus on making this happen.”

Sources for this article include:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/031401_Non-GMO_Project_GMOs.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/GM_alfalfa.html

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/038139_organic_farmers_GMOs_crop_contamination.html#ixzz2Dbhg4zwQ

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

GMO Labeling Law on the California Ballot — One Small Step for No GMO-Kind : Exclusive Renegade Health ArticleOver the next few days, you’ll hear a lot of news about a GMO labeling law being accepted on the California ballot in November 2012…

This means if the majority of Golden State voters are in favor of labeling GMO foods on the supermarket shelf at the end of this year, then all food manufacturers will have to disclose — on their packaging — that their product contains (or is) a genetically modified ingredient.

Since the public has been polled and is not in favor of eating GMO foods, this is good news for people who want to know what they’re eating, but a sticky situation for the food companies. Some polls say up to 90% of people said they would not eat a GMO food if they were given a choice. This means that labeling these foods, could cause people to spend their money on products that don’t contain these ingredients.

Bad news for those who profit on this technology — and have invested billions and billions of dollars into it.

But it’s hesitatingly-awesome news for you and I (since we want real food, as nature intended.)

I say hesitatingly-awesome, not only because I like making up words (which I really do), but because I consider this only one step — not a giant leap — in the process of getting your food labeled and exercising your freedom to know what the heck you’re eating — your continued action and support is needed.

Probably even more so than ever before.

Now the real fight begins…

There’s a lot of money invested in genetically modified foods — billions of dollars. There’s also a ton of expected profit — hundreds of years of profit — into the trillions of dollars.

Basically, in layman’s terms, they’ve found out that if you change the DNA of a plant and put your own creative (mutant) spin on it — genetic modification — you can patent it and profit from it. That’s what a GMO is.

If the food companies can control the patents on everything that we eat they can sit back and collect on licensing, the sale of seeds and any other way they can profit on controlling the food chain for generations.

It’s the ultimate business play. Make profit on something that everyone has to do. (Just wait until they find a way to profit on the air we breathe… it may be coming sooner than we think.)

So here’s the thing. Everything was going along fine for the food companies, until some “crazy” (labeled by the government and industry) scientists started to question how good these new, engineered foods are for the earth — and ultimately your health and wellbeing.

What they found was that is seemed more prudent — in the professional opinions of these scientists — to not unleash this technology around the globe before there was concrete science that proved they were completely safe for the environment and your own health.

Unfortunately, the food companies, decided to ignore these professional opinions, discredit these scientists and start to release these foods into the marketplace.

You see, they don’t want you or anyone else to think that GMO foods like corn, soy, canola, and others — with this mutant DNA — are any different than the food you’re eating now. It’s bad for business.

If they can show you that an ear of GMO corn looks just like an organically grown ear of corn, they’re pretty sure you won’t care what its DNA looks like. And if you don’t care, then they can still collect money on their patents and their seeds and associated products.

So now that a GMO labeling law is on the California ballot, it is in their best interest to “educate you” on why GMO foods are just the same — or better — than the food we’re eating now.

And, believe me, they’re going to put up a fight.

So right now, I want arm you with some ammunition (no, not guns or anything) that will help you understand what they will say and what it really means.

Here are the 4 “education points” they’ll use to try to convince you, your friends and your family that GMOs are OK and why you should not believe them at all.

1. GMOs are no different than the food you eat now.

First, like I already said, they want you to believe that GMO foods are exactly the same as the food that you’re already eating. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well, it must be a duck.

The truth is, the DNA, the inner workings of these foods has been altered to a degree that scientists are still quite unsure of what exactly these plants and foods will react in the environment and in your body. Some of them actually produce their own pesticides.

This kind of weird science is more like having a duck that has weird parts on the inside that may or may not carry out duck activities like swimming, flying or eating… what do ducks eat anyway? Bread?

2. There’s no science that says GMOs are harmful.

As a counter argument to the uncertainly of how these foods react in our world, the food industry will undoubtedly say, “we’ve spend billions of dollars on testing these foods and there’s no scientific evidence linking GMO foods to any health issues or environmental concerns.”

They always do this.

Basically, what this translates to is, “we’ve spent billions of dollars crafting studies that protect our investment.” Independent science on GMOs does exist and it’s not as favorable as the food industry would like you to think.

I guess it’s just human nature.

Let’s say you run a cigarette business. Isn’t in your best interest to make sure that no one connects your product to cancer? You bet.

3. GMOs can save the world.

If all else fails, it’s time to pull on your heartstrings.

Most bio-tech companies will tell you that genetically modified foods can save the world in one way or another. They usually mention starving children when they bring up this topic to make sure they get your attention.

The issue with this argument is that the majority of genetically modified foods being grown today are not being developed to help starving children. They are crops grown in the U.S. and around the world (where GMOs are not banned) being grown to produce their own pesticides, fatten up animals, make plant based plastics, and add filler into your food.

The starving children ploy is a pie-in-the-sky attempt to make you feel like you’re supporting something that is just a secondary — faux-humanitarian — focus of most of the food producers.

Also, a little darker to think about, all companies must turn a profit to survive, so if they’re thinking about helping starving children, they’ve also figured out a way to profit from them.

True humanitarianism is giving aid, not profiting from it and then using it as a PR move to get your support.

4. GMOs are the future of food.

Finally, the food companies will act as if you don’t have a choice, all the world has already accepted this new type of food and you’re the only one who hasn’t. “If you want to be a dirty old hippie and live like a caveman, fine, but get your Volkswagen bus out of everyone else’s way,” they’ll say.

If you think everyone else is already on board, then it makes sense to be on board too. The food and biotech companies will start to form advisory boards of prominent doctors and scientists, pay a celebrity or two and get a prominent politician to endorse genetically modified foods so you think they’re a-OK. You do trust politicians, doctors and celebrities, right?

But the truth is, there are many more people who want to know what is in our food. You’re one of the millions of people around the globe that cares and they’re just trying to win you over with their big PR firms and spin.

So ultimately, your job is to spread the world, whether you’re in California or Kazakhstan. Tell people that you want to know what’s in your food. It’s as simple as that.

Our job isn’t done here. It’s our responsibility to counter the spin and ultimately have control over what we feed our families. Some of these arguments above will assist you along the way.

Also, if you really want to help, since we need you now more than ever, here’s where you can go: http://www.LabelGMOs.org

On this site, you can sign up to get newsletters on GMOs, you can ask how you can donate your time, or you can donate money to the campaign.

As I said in the beginning, our jobs have just started. If we really care about our food, this may be the most important issue that we’ve been faced with in the last 50 years.

Your question of the day: What are you going to do?

Live Awesome!
Kev

ABOUT Kevin Gianni

Kevin Gianni is a health author, activist and blogger. He started seriously researching personal and preventative natural health therapies in 2002 when he was struck with the reality that cancer ran deep in his family and if he didn’t change the way he was living — he might go down that same path. Since then, he’s written and edited 6 books on the subject of natural health, diet and fitness. During this time, he’s constantly been humbled by what experts claim they know and what actually is true. This has led him to experiment with many diets and protocols — including vegan, raw food, fasting, medical treatments and more — to find out what is myth and what really works in the real world.

Kevin has also traveled around the world searching for the best protocols, foods, medicines and clinics around and bringing them to the readers of his blog RenegadeHealth.com — which is one of the most widely read natural health blogs in the world with hundreds of thousands of visitors a month from over 150 countries around the world.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Dr. Mercola

In 2010, the Corn Refiners Association (CRA) petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow manufacturers the option of using the term “corn sugar” instead of “high fructose corn syrup” (HFCS) on food labels.

This renaming was a clever marketing ploy that would have easily hidden HFCS on labels, which is precisely what CRA wanted since so many people are now aware of the risks of consuming HFCS, and are seeking to avoid it in droves.

Fortunately, at the end of May, the FDA finally took a stand and told CRA they weren’t going to allow the re-naming of HFCS to “corn sugar” … but somehow CRA is still getting away with advertising it as such on TV …

No Corn Sugar on Labels, But OK on TV Commercials?

You have probably seen CRA’s marketing campaign on television. The commercials try to reduce shopper confusion and anxiety, showing actors who say they now understand that “whether it’s corn sugar or cane sugar, your body can’t tell the difference”.

The claim that all sugars are metabolized by your body in the same way is an outdated belief that has been shattered in more recent years by a growing body of scientific research, which I’ll get to shortly. However, the main issue is that while the FDA has stepped in to say that calling HFCS “corn sugar” is not acceptable, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), whose job it is to decide whether or not ads aired on television are deceptive, has not.

The Consumerist asked the FTC to comment on the issue, but they refused, saying they would only issue a statement after an investigation had been conducted. But as The Consumerist pointed out, this doesn’t necessarily mean they are conducting one on this issue currently, or plan to in the future … For now, while the FDA says HFCS cannot be called corn sugar on food labels, the FTC still allows them to advertise it as such on TV!

Why the FDA Denied the “Corn Sugar” Naming Petition

In a letter response to CRA’s petition, the FDA gave salient reasons for denying the use of “corn sugar” to refer to HFCS,i the first being that HFCS is a liquid syrup, not a granular, dried, crystalized food as the word “sugar” implies:

“FDA’s regulatory approach for the nomenclature of sugar and syrups is that sugar is a solid, dried, and crystallized food; whereas syrup is an aqueous solution or liquid food … FDA’s approach is consistent with the common understanding of sugar and syrup as referenced in a dictionary …,” they state.

“Consequently, the use of the term “corn sugar” for HFCS would suggest that HFCS is a solid, dried, and crystallized sweetener obtained from corn. Instead, HFCS is an aqueous solution sweetener derived from corn after enzymatic hydrolysis of cornstarch, followed by enzymatic conversion of glucose (dextrose) to fructose. Thus, the use of the term “sugar” to describe HFCS, a product that is a syrup, would not accurately identify or describe the basic nature of the food or its characterizing properties.”

The FDA also took issue with CRA’s attempts to eliminate the term corn sugar as an alternative name for dextrose, for which it is often used. For those who aren’t aware, dextrose is pure glucose and contains no fructose. For this reason, I recommend it as a safer alternative to most other sugars on the market. Even the FDA acknowledged that swapping corn sugar, which is often taken to mean “dextrose,” for HFCS could put people who are sensitive to fructose at risk:

“Moreover, “corn sugar” has been known to be an allowed ingredient for individuals with hereditary fructose intolerance or fructose malabsorption, who have been advised to avoid ingredients that contain fructose. Because such individuals have associated “corn sugar” to be an acceptable ingredient to their health when “high fructose corn syrup” is not, changing the name for HFCS to “corn sugar” could put these individuals at risk and pose a public health concern.”

It’s the Fructose, in Excess, That’s the Problem

It’s important to note that both sugar and HFCS are problematic, as they both contain similar amounts of fructose, the true culprit.

Sucrose (table sugar) is 50 percent glucose and 50 percent fructose. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is anywhere from 42 to 55 percent fructose depending on which type is used. Glucose is the form of energy your body is designed to run on. Every cell in your body uses glucose for energy, and it’s metabolized in every organ of your body; about 20 percent of glucose is metabolized in your liver. Fructose, on the other hand, can only be metabolized by your liver, because your liver is the only organ that has the transporter for it.

Since all fructose gets shuttled to your liver, and, if you eat a typical Western-style diet, you consume high amounts of it, fructose ends up taxing and damaging your liver in the same way alcohol and other toxins do. In fact, fructose is virtually identical to alcohol with regards to the metabolic havoc it wreaks. According to Dr. Robert Lustig, professor of pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, fructose is a “chronic, dose-dependent liver toxin.” And just like alcohol, fructose is metabolized directly into fat—not cellular energy, like glucose. When you compare the health outcomes of fructose versus alcohol consumption, you end up seeing a very familiar pattern—the diseases they cause are virtually identical, according to Dr. Lustig and colleagues.

Chronic Ethanol Consumption

Chronic Fructose Consumption

Hypertension

Hypertension

Cardiomyopathy

Myocardial infarction

Dyslipidemia

Dyslipidemia

Pancreatitis

Pancreatitis

Obesity

Obesity

Hepatic dysfunction (ASH)

Hepatic dysfunction (NASH)

Fetal alcohol syndrome

Fetal insulin resistance

Addiction

Habituation, if not addiction

The reason why HFCS may, in fact, be even worse than table sugar, despite having similar fructose content, is due to its liquid form. When you consume fructose in liquid form, such as drinking a soda, it places even more of a burden on your liver. The effect on your liver is not only sped up but also magnified.

“Sugar is sugar” no matter what form it’s in, is a misstatement that can, quite literally, kill you—albeit slowly.

Is Coca-Cola’s Chief Scientific Officer in Touch with Reality?

In a commentary that would be almost comical if it weren’t true, the vice president and chief scientific and regulatory officer at Coca-Cola lashed out at critics who blame the soda industry for the obesity epidemic, and offered the perfect recipe for slimming down: exercise and low-calorie, no-calorie Coke, or full-calorie in smaller cans.

“Coca-Cola clearly has a role to play in developing solutions,” Applebaum said.ii “Helping people manage their calories is nothing new to us. … But it’s not just about options―it’s also about information. In 2009 we added calorie amounts on the front of nearly all of our packages to make it easier for people to choose beverages that are right for them.”

Applebaum added that Michelle Obama did the right thing by tapping celebrities like Beyonce to remind children that activities like dance can be just as entertaining as a video game.

Coca-Cola is not the sole cause of the obesity epidemic … but it’s certainly a major contributor. There’s no getting around the fact that, from a health perspective, drinking Coke or any soft drink is a disaster. Just one extra can of soda per day can add as much as 15 pounds to your weight over the course of a single year,iii not to mention increase your risk of diabetes by 85 percent.iv

Is Any Amount of Fructose Safe?

Fructose per se is not necessarily toxic – in small amounts, and especially when complexed with the vital food factors found within whole, organic and raw fruit There are instances when your body can use it. The problem is that people consume so MUCH of it, and in such a highly processed form, that it turns toxic by virtue of the fact that your body cannot use it. It simply gets shuttled into your cells and stored as fat.

So it’s mainly the MASSIVE DOSES you’re exposed to that make it dangerous.

If you want to shed excess pounds and maintain a healthy weight long-term, and RADICALLY reduce (and in many cases virtually eliminate) your risk of diabetes, heart disease and cancer, then start getting serious about restricting your consumption of fructose to no more than 25 grams per day. If you’re already overweight, or have any of these diseases or are at high risk of any of them, then you’re probably better off cutting that down to 10-15 grams per day.

I’ve also included a chart below of fructose levels in fruit to give you an idea of what 25 grams a day looks like.

Graphic courtesy of Caitlin Covington for Greatist.comv

Just remember, fruit is only one source, as fructose is a staple ingredient in the vast majority of sweetened beverages and processed foods of all kinds, from pre-packaged meals to baked goods and condiments. Fructose is in HFCS, yes, but it’s also in table sugar and these other sweeteners below, which are typically considered “healthy.” You’ve got to pay attention to all of them, as they are all adding to your fructose load.

Honey

Date sugar

Coconut sugar

Brown rice syrup

Fruit juice

Molasses

Maple syrup

Sucanat

Sorghum

Turbinado

Agave syrup

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

What Is Cellulite?

Cellulite is usually found in places where we store stubborn fat – the thighs, bum, backs of the arms and stomach. It is those areas of skin that look lumpy, kind of like cottage cheese or the surface of a golf ball.

But really, cellulite is just a fancy name for fat pockets that push against the connective tissue underneath your skin. If the connective tissue doesn’t hold in the underlying fat, it creates that lumpy look.

Your body composition (muscle to fat ratio), genes, gender, skin thickness, age and lifestyle, all influence whether or not you have cellulite and how much you have.

Cellulite affects women more than men because of the female hormone estrogen and a woman’s tendency for thin skin. Estrogen tends to increase fluid buildup in fatty tissue and along with the thinner skin, the superficial fat shows through more easily.

Most women and even teen girls have some cellulite and, as I said before, even “skinny” people can have cellulite.

So, no matter what the cause of your cellulite, if you’re exasperated by your dimply bits, read on to find out how to conquer them once and for all.

With that in mind, let’s dive into a few sneaky tricks that smooth cellulite fast, from my friend and female fat loss expert Sue Heintze, of IdealBodiesOnline.com…

Sneaky Trick #1: Eat Cellulite Smoothing Superfoods

Mom was right – you really do have to eat your fruits and veggies every day.

What she may not have told you is that fruits and veggies help supply the antioxidants that fight free radicals.

Antioxidants are sometimes called “free radical scavengers” because they come along and mop up the mess made by free radicals.

They also prevent future damage by providing a layer of protection for the cells and tissues in your body, just like a thick coat of wax protects your furniture and your car’s finish.

When it comes to choosing fruits and veggies for their antioxidants, go for the bright colors!

Carrots, squash, tomatoes, broccoli, peaches, sweet potatoes, cantaloupe, watermelon, berries.

Citrus fruits like oranges, limes and lemons are awesome too. Along with berries, these citrus fruits contain lots of vitamin C to help build collagen (which supports healthy skin). Dried fruits are excellent sources of antioxidants too, especially prunes, figs, apricots and dates. Just be sure not to overdo it because many fruits are high in sugar.

Sneaky Trick #2: Take Out The Trash

Supposedly, your body is a wonderland. John Mayer coined the phrase in a popular song. However, with today’s ‘on the go’ lifestyle of convenience, most people’s bodies are more like a toxic wasteland than a wonderland.

You’ve probably heard the term free radicals before.

To get a little technical for a moment, a free radical is a molecule that has lost one of its electrons and become extremely unbalanced. It attempts to restore its balance by stealing a vital electron from another cell. Within the body, this can cause unnecessary damage.

Free radicals cause cell damage, disease, and premature aging. Toxins produce these harmful free radicals – which are treated like poison in our bodies.

Your lymph system is what flushes toxins from your body. Free radicals put a lot of pressure on your lymph system and make it sluggish. This sluggishness creates fibers that bind to the walls of fat pockets, making them thicker. This extra pressure squishes your fat further upwards and creates the appearance of cellulite.

Some of the leading causes of free radicals are: cigarette smoke, stress, alcohol, charred food, pesticides and internal inflammation caused by eating the wrong types of foods.

Certain foods lead to increases in pro-inflammatory hormones. Refined sugar and processed foods (things in boxes), are among the worst. The body treats preservatives, colors, additives and other chemicals in foods as toxins. They trigger an immune system response, which leads to inflammation. As a rule, all processed foods contain chemicals and increase inflammation.

Eating foods you are allergic to (or have intolerance to) also triggers a response from the immune system, causing more inflammation. Many people (without even knowing) have intolerances to wheat and dairy products, so these are good foods to test removing from your diet. (If you feel the same after 4 weeks you can add them back.)

Your body is constantly replacing and repairing free-radical damaged cells, but with the way the majority of people abuse their bodies these days, these free radicals are out of control and are a major cause of premature aging, disease and… yes, it can increase cellulite.

So, what do we need to be aware of?

Cigarette Smoke. You’re not gonna make me explain this one are you? Ok, in brief, there are approximately 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes, hundreds of which are toxic. The ingredients in cigarettes affect everything from the functioning of internal organs to the efficiency of the body’s immune system. The effects of cigarette smoking are destructive and widespread.

So c’mon, give up the ciggies – and avoid second-hand smoke too.

Stress. There’s no way to completely eliminate stress from our lives – in fact, some stress is a good thing; it keeps us on our toes and makes us take action. But it’s good to be aware of how too much stress affects your body. Some signs that stress might be an issue for you: anxiety, insomnia, impatience/anger, headaches, high blood pressure and other diseases, etc.

Regular exercise, a good diet, massage and relaxation techniques will alleviate stress even when you’re not able to eliminate the source.

Charred Food. You probably cover your nose when you have to walk through a cloud of exhaust or cigarette smoke, or when you smell trash burning from a distance. Well, the same toxins in those fumes are also found in grilled and charred foods.

High Sugar Foods. You know the culprits here – chocolates, cakes, donuts, sodas, juices and so on. Sugar produces insulin — and insulin increases fat storage and the production of those dastardly free radicals.

Processed Foods. These contain additives and preservatives, and usually are high in fat, sugar and salt, which only contribute to fat gain and increase the toxic overload in your body.

Trans Fats. Margarine is sometimes called a “twisted sister” because of its awful combination of saturated fat and trans fat. Stay away from it.

Did you know more trans fats are used in commercially baked goods than in any other food? Do your baking at home so you can have control over the fat content.

An important note: just because a label says “low-fat” doesn’t mean there is no trans fat. Always read labels. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s website says you should look for the following in labels if you want to avoid trans fats:

If the ingredient list includes the words “shortening,” “partially hydrogenated vegetable oil” or “hydrogenated vegetable oil,” the food contains trans fat.

Alcohol. Alcohol increases free radicals and can boost fat storage as well. Again, don’t panic, because you don’t have to be a tee-totaller – but you MUST be careful of both the type of alcohol you consume, the quantity and what foods you consume it with. A few glasses of red wine a week are fine. Two a day and you’ve got big trouble.

Obesity-Causing Environmental Chemicals. We’re going to get into these a LOT more in the next blog post, but the bottom line is that scientists have discovered that there are certain chemicals hidden in foods and beverages, and chemicals that seep into our foods and drinks from the packaging materials they are stored in, that alter the regulatory systems that control our weight. In other words, we’re getting fatter, and getting more cellulite not just from the calories in food but from chemicals within the food and chemicals we encounter in our environment. Pretty scary stuff. (By the way, make sure not to ever use any type of plastic cookware in a microwave. The intense heat can cause chemicals from the plastic to enter your food. Science is showing that these chemicals can disrupt our endocrine systems and even lead to added body fat including cellulite.)

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

More than one in five Americans are drinking tap water that’s been treated with a derivative of chlorine known as chloramine. This disinfectant is formed by mixing chlorine with ammonia.

Chloramine is a less effective disinfectant than chlorine, but it is longer lasting and stays in the water system as it moves through the pipes that transport it to your home (a process that can take three or four days).

For this reason, chloramine is often used alongside chlorine as a “secondary” disinfectant designed to remain in your water longer – but is it safe?

Chloramines May Raise Your Water’s Level of Toxic Unregulated Disinfection Byproducts

If you receive municipal water that is treated with chlorine or chloramines, toxic disinfection byproducts (DBPs) form when these disinfectants react with natural organic matter like decaying vegetation in the source water.

DBPs are over 10,000 times more toxic than chlorine, and out of all the other toxins and contaminants present in your water, such as fluoride and miscellaneous pharmaceutical drugs, DBPs are likely the absolute worst of the bunch.

Already, it’s known that trihalomethanes (THMs), one of the most common DBPs, are Cancer Group B carcinogens, meaning they’ve been shown to cause cancer in laboratory animals. They’ve also been linked to reproductive problems in both animals and humans, such as spontaneous abortion, stillbirths, and congenital malformations, even at lower levels. These types of DBPs can also:
•Weaken your immune system
•Disrupt your central nervous system
•Damage your cardiovascular system
•Disrupt your renal system
•Cause respiratory problems

One of the benefits often touted about chloramines is that they produce lower levels of regulated DBPs, such as THMs, compared to chlorine. They still produce them, just at lower levels.

In 1998, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published its Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule, which required water treatment systems to reduce the formation of DBPs. This has led to an increasing number of treatment plants switching from chlorine to chloramine1 …

Many believe this makes chloramine the superior choice in terms of safety, but what is less publicized is that compared to chlorine, water treated with monochloramine (the most common form of chloramine used to disinfect drinking water) may contain higher concentrations of unregulated disinfection byproducts – the risks of which are unknown.2

Considering that many water utilities treat their water with both chlorine and chloramine, you may be getting the most of both regulated and unregulated DBPs in your drinking water, shower and bath (the DBPs that enter your body through your skin during showering or bathing also go directly into your bloodstream). There are, in fact, as many as 600 different toxic DBPs that have been identified, and to which you may be exposed through treated water.3

Higher Lead Levels in Water Linked to Chloramines

There are other issues with chloramine in your water that you should be aware of, like its potential to extract lead from old water pipes. For example, when you combine chloramines with the fluoride (hydrofluorosilicic acid) added to most of the U.S. water supply, they become very effective at extracting lead from old plumbing systems—essentially, together, they promote the accumulation of lead in the water supply!

“In fact the two of them have been combined, and I believe patented to be put together so that they could extract lead,” said fluoride activist Jeff Green.

Lead, a known toxin to your brain and nervous system, is so toxic that it has been banned in gasoline and children’s toys, and lead paint hasn’t been in use since 1978. But even the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention acknowledges that when chlorine is replaced with chloramines in drinking water, it raises not only the amount of lead that leaches into water, but the blood lead levels of children who consume it!

“When the free chlorine was replaced with chloramines, the transformed highly insoluble lead scale minerals were no longer stable and dissolved. Therefore, a substantial level of lead was released from the lead service lines into drinking water at the tap.

CDC reviewed the relationship between BLLs [blood lead levels] in children, the presence of a lead service line, and water disinfection practices in DC during 1998–2006. The study reported that the presence of a lead service line was associated with higher BLLs in children. This relationship was most pronounced during 2001 through June 2004, when chloramines were used to disinfect the drinking water without adequate corrosion control.

An observational study in which the BLLs of children were matched to population-based data of water lead levels during periods when water disinfection practices changed in DC concluded that the increase in water lead levels was associated with an increase in the BLLs of children.”4

An analysis in Environmental Health Perspectives also found that introducing chloramines may increase the lead in drinking water, and pointed out that although anti-corrosive agents added during the treatment process are supposed to mitigate this risk, they aren’t always effective:5

“Several recent studies provided evidence that the introduction of chloramines to water systems with lead-containing pipes, fixtures, or solder may increase the amount of dissolved lead in water because of changes in water chemistry; interactions with additives such as coagulants or fluoridation agents may remove lead dioxide scales originally formed during decades of chlorine-based disinfection.

This leaching might be managed to some extent by the addition of anticorrosivity agents during the water treatment process; however, the details of all the related environmental chemistry are not fully understood and are highly dependent on the particular chemical interactions found in each water treatment and distribution system.”

Many Residents Voice Concerns Over Chloramines, Safety Studies Seriously Lacking

Residents across the United States from California and Oklahoma to Vermont have voiced concerns over chloramine safety, wondering whether it’s truly as safe as water utilities would like you to believe. At the very least, the chemical has been linked to skin irritations and rashes, noted Robert Howd of the California EPA:6

“ …chloramines, like chlorine, can irritate sensitive mucus membranes, and could potentially cause skin irritation. When some utilities have switched to chloramine, there have been user reports of bad-tasting water, a bad feel of the water on the skin, skin irritation, and other symptoms.”

Furthermore, according to the EPA, no scientific studies on chloramine’s effects on your skin or respiratory tract via inhalation have been conducted. And while some cancer studies have been, they are so limited that they are not able to conclusively determine if chloramine might, in fact, cause cancer.7

This is concerning, since exposure to chloramine in your indoor air while bathing and showering may represent your greatest route of exposure, even more so than drinking it.

Also the cancer studies on chloramine itself are so limited that they cannot be used to determine if chloramine is a carcinogen, and its environmental effects are worrisome. Chloramine is toxic to frogs and other amphibians, reptiles, fish and other aquatic and marine life, to the extent that you cannot use chloramine-treated water to fill up a fish tank or backyard fish pond. As the water runs into streams, rivers and other marine areas, it could be disastrous for the marine life.

So while water utilities stand to save money by cutting chlorine costs with chloramine, the benefits to the public are far less clear. Other potential concerns include:8
•Because of chloramine’s corrosive nature, it has been linked to pinhole pitting in copper water pipes, which can lead to small water leaks and mold growth in your home
•Chloramine also corrodes rubber toilet flappers and gaskets, rubber hoses, and rubber fittings in dishwashers and water heaters, leading to costly home repairs
•Chloramine de-elasticizes PVC pipes, making them brittle and accelerating the leaching of possible carcinogens from the plastic into drinking water

Chloramine is Difficult to Remove From Your Water, But it Can be Done

Chloramine cannot be removed by quick boiling your water or letting it sit out in an open container (as is sometimes recommended for chlorine). A carbon filter can remove the chemical from your drinking water, but that leaves your shower and bath – a significant route of exposure — without protection. It would be helpful to take as cold a shower as possible as heat will convert more of the chemicals to a toxic gas. Additionally shorter showers will also obviously further limit your exposure.

Because of the high flow rate and large volume of water passing through your shower, there is no showerhead filter on the market that will effectively remove all chloramine. A whole-house filtration system is therefore your best choice to remove chlorine, chloramine, ammonia, DBPs and other contaminants from all of your water sources (bath, shower and tap).

If you don’t have the resources for a whole-house filtration system at this time, there are a couple of other tricks you can try. At FindaSpring.com you can identify local springs where you can get pure, chloramine-free drinking water for a minimal cost. You can also try:9
•Adding fruit, such as slices of peeled orange, to a 1-gallon water pitcher, which will help neutralize chloramine in about 30 minutes
•Dissolving a 1,000-mg vitamin C tablet into your bath water, which will neutralize the chloramine in an average-size bathtub

If you’re not sure whether your city uses chloramine as a water disinfectant, contact your local water utility. And if you have concerns, voice them to your municipality. There are other disinfection techniques available, such as ultraviolet light and micro-filtration, which appear to be much safer, and may be an option in your area if enough people get involved to prompt change. This recently occurred in Albemarle County in Central Virginia, which dropped the consideration of chloramines after negative public feedback — and is now looking at the use of granular-activated carbon as a secondary water disinfectant.10

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Dr. Mercola

The mass cultivation of genetically modified (GM) soybeans has a hugely detrimental environmental and health impact worldwide.

As it stands, soy is widely used in our diets, in processed foods and found in most meat, as soy is fed to animals on CAFOs (concentrated animal feeding operations).

The next “natural” step, at least according to two of the largest stakeholders in the soy industry, Monsanto (creator of GM soy) and food giant Cargill, is to make soy the feed of choice for factory-farmed fish around the world – a move they are misleadingly labeling as “sustainable.”

Fortunately, Food & Water Watch has released a report that reveals the truth: bringing soy to fish feed would be an environmental, and human health, disaster.

Why We Need to Keep Soy Out of the Sea

It’s estimated that about half of the world’s seafood comes from aquaculture, which is the term used to describe industrial fish farming. Like the land-based CAFOs, industrial fish farming has had problems from the start, including overcrowded conditions, pollution and unnatural diets.

Feed has been an area of controversy, as sometimes wild fish are used to prepare the fishmeal fed to farmed fish, depleting the natural fish supply in some areas.

In September 2011, the Illinois Soybean Association announced that soy feed could “revolutionize sustainable agriculture” on fish farms. They’re clamoring to get soy into fish feed as soon as possible, as doing so could earn them a reported $201 million a year, and that is a low estimate! But as Food & Water Watch points out, just as soy has been detrimental to land-based food lots, human health and the environment, it could be devastating to our oceans, and seafood supplies, as well:

” … while the soy industry stands to make large profits from the expansion of factory fish farming, there is no guarantee that soy-based aquaculture feed can consistently produce healthy fish or promote ecological responsibility . In fact, by causing fish to produce excess waste, soy could lead to an even more polluting fish farming industry.

By supporting factory fish farming, the soy industry could not only help to expand an industry that degrades marine environments, threatens wild fish populations and damages coastal communities, it could also extend its own negative impacts.

Already, industrial soy production has led to the prevalence of genetically modified crops on U.S. farmland and in consumer food products, caused massive deforestation in South America and displaced indigenous communities living in areas now used to grow soy. Rather than actually promoting sustainability in a developing industry, the involvement of soy associations in aquaculture could spur the growth of two industries that have extremely negative impacts on our land, our oceans and the communities that depend on them.”

4 Reasons Why Soy in Fish Feed Could be Devastating

What could happen if fish are fed soy – a food they would virtually never come into contact with in their natural environment?
•Increased pollution: Fish fed soy produce more waste than other fish, which means more pollution the ocean is not set up to handle. Also, GM soy is invariably contaminated with residues of potent glyphosate-based herbicide formulations (e.g. Roundup) used to produce them, which a growing body of research clearly shows is extremely toxic to aquatic life.1
•Contamination of the oceans (and your seafood) with genetically modified organisms (GMOs): About 94 percent of the soy grown in the United States is genetically modified. And when you feed farmed fish raised in an ocean environment, any feed that is not consumed flows directly out of the cage and into the ocean. As Food & Water Watch noted, feeding soy to farmed fish means GM food will enter the environment and diets of wild marine organisms, permanently contaminating our oceans with completely unknown consequences.
•Monsanto and Cargill will have control of seafood … and parts of the ocean: Monsanto, which has sponsored feed trials with GM soy and salmon, is already keen on spreading their GM seeds “from sea to shining sea” … Cargill, which has an aquaculture feed division, is another industrial food giant. By bringing soy into fish farming, their reach will now extend into issues concerning the very sustainability and future of marine life!
•Deforestation could increase: Large quantities of South American land are already being cleared to make way for soy farms. This could increase if even more soy is needed for aquaculture.

There are many reasons why I already advise avoiding factory-farmed fish, but the addition of GM soy as a staple to their diets is the icing on the cake. The soy industry, however, is showing no signs of stopping. Food & Water Watch reported:

“The American soy industry is powerful. It has been able to fund many studies on using soy for fish feed; it has built relationships in the aquaculture industry; and it has publicly supported federal policies in favor of offshore aquaculture.

… Soy does not have the full array of nutrients demanded by fish, however; nor is it a natural fish food or substance in the marine environment. In fact, using soy may cause some fish farms to pollute more by producing extra waste. Further, the negative ramifications of the soy industry on the environment and potentially on our health are reasons to resist the allure of soy as a “savior” of the aquaculture industry.

The cultivation of soy is associated with agricultural runoff that is contributing to the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, with deforestation in Latin America and with the displacement of many indigenous peoples from their homes and work.

As soy becomes increasingly ubiquitous in our diets — in processed foods and the meat from animals that have been raised on it — we must ask what health impacts this high level of soy consumption may have on us. Scientists are beginning to question claims about the benefits of eating soy and to suggest that the plant-based estrogens that occur naturally in soy, many of which are endocrine disruptors, could potentially have adverse impacts.

In light of these concerns and unanswered questions, it is troubling to know that much of our fish — one of our last wild foods — could be fattened on this crop.”

Do You Know the Truth About GM Soy?

Genetically modified soybeans are designed to be “Roundup ready.” This means they are chemically engineered to withstand heavy doses of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide without killing the plant! What does this mean for your health and the health of your unborn or yet-to-be-conceived children?

The long-term effects of the human consumption of genetically modified soy and soy-based products are staggering. In April 2010, researchers at Russia’s Institute of Ecology and Evolution of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the National Association for Gene Security found that after feeding hamsters GM soy for two years over three generations, by the third generation, most lost the ability to have pups!2

A Brazilian study published in 2009 looked at the impact of soy on the reproductive system of female rats. Female rats fed GM soy for 15 months showed significant changes in their uterus and reproductive cycles, compared to rats fed organic soy or no soy.3

Extrapolating the findings to people, women who eat GM soy products may be more likely to experience severe hormonal disruptions, including an overabundance of estrogen and/or estrogenic activity, a hair-growth stimulating hormone, and damage to the pituitary gland. GM soy has also been linked to loss of libido and erectile dysfunction in men, and, disturbingly, the only published human feeding study on GM foods ever conducted verified that the gene inserted into GM soy transfers into the DNA of human gut bacteria and continues to function.

This means that years after you stop eating GM soy, you may still have a range of potentially allergenic proteins continuously being produced in your intestines. Not to mention, the intensive soy farming taking place in areas like Paraguay is subjecting residents to pesticide poisoning, and threatening biodiversity and access to locally grown produce.

There are Ways You Can Help

If you’re wondering what you can do, one step in the right direction is to avoid factory-farmed fish. By doing this, you’re withdrawing your support of an industry that is not in the best interest of human health and the environment, and you’re protecting your health, as nutritionally speaking farmed fish are among the worst type of seafood you can eat.

I do not recommend consuming seafood of any kind unless you know it is from pure waters, not contaminated with chemicals, and harvested by a sustainable fishery. Keep in mind that virtually all fish served in restaurants is from factory farms. On a larger scale, you can boycott not only farmed fish but also GM soy by following the tips below. It is time to shift our food paradigm toward one that is more focused on natural, organic and independent community farms, and this is true both on land and at sea.
1.Buy local products whenever possible. Otherwise, buy organic and fair-trade products.
2.Shop at your local farmers market, join a CSA (Community Supported Agriculture), or buy from local grocers and co-ops committed to selling local foods.
3.Support restaurants and food vendors that buy locally produced food.
4.Avoid genetically engineered (GM) foods. Buying certified organic ensures your food is non-GM.
5.Cook, can, ferment, dry and freeze. Return to the basics of cooking, and pass these skills on to your children.
6.Drink plenty of water, but avoid bottled water whenever possible, and do invest in a high-quality water filter to filter the water from your tap.
7.Grow your own garden, or volunteer at a community garden. Teach your children how to garden and where their food comes from.
8.Volunteer and/or financially support an organization committed to promoting a sustainable food system.
9.Get involved in your community. Influence what your child eats by engaging the school board. Effect city policies by learning about zoning and attending city council meetings. Learn about the federal policies that affect your food choice, and let your congressperson know what you think.
10.Spread the word! Share this article with your friends, family, and everyone else you know.

References:

——————————————————————————–
1 GreenMedInfo, Roundup Toxicology Research
2 Huffington Post April 20, 2010
3 The Anatomical Record: Advances in Integrative Anatomy and Evolutionary Biology Volume 292, Issue 4, pages 587–594, April 2009

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Dr. Mercola

When I first read that genetically modified humans have already been born, I could hardly believe it. However, further research into this story featured in the UK’s Daily Mail1 proved it to be true. They’ve really done it… they’ve created humans that nature could never allow for, and it’s anyone’s guess as to what will happen next.

Even more shocking was the discovery that this is actually old news!

The Daily Mail article was not dated, and upon investigation, the experiments cited actually took place over a decade ago; the study announcing their successful birth was published in 20012.

While I typically comment on recent findings and health related news, in this case I will make an exception, because I think many of you may be as surprised by this information as I was. I do not propose to have any answers here as this is out of my scope of expertise.

At best, I hope I can stir you to ponder the implications of this type of genetic engineering, and I invite you to share your perspective in the vital votes’ comment section below. As reported in the featured article:

“The disclosure that 30 healthy babies were born after a series of experiments in the United States provoked another furious debate about ethics… Fifteen of the children were born… as a result of one experimental program at the Institute for Reproductive Medicine and Science of St Barnabas in New Jersey.

The babies were born to women who had problems conceiving. Extra genes from a female donor were inserted into their eggs before they were fertilized in an attempt to enable them to conceive.

Genetic fingerprint tests on two one-year- old children confirm that they have inherited DNA from three adults—two women and one man.”

Human Germline Now Altered… What Happens Next?

Today, these children are in their early teens, and while the original study claims that this was “the first case of human germline genetic modification resulting in normal healthy children,” later reports put such claims of absolute success in dispute. Still, back in 2001, the authors seemed to think they had it all under control, stating:

“These are the first reported cases of germline mtDNA genetic modification which have led to the inheritance of two mtDNA populations in the children resulting from ooplasmic transplantation. These mtDNA fingerprints demonstrate that the transferred mitochondria can be replicated and maintained in the offspring, therefore being a genetic modification without potentially altering mitochondrial function.”

It’s relevant to understand that these children have inherited extra genes—that of TWO women and one man—and will be able to pass this extra set of genetic traits to their own offspring. One of the most shocking considerations here is that this was done—repeatedly—even though no one knows what the ramifications of having the genetic traits of three parents might be for the individual, or for their subsequent offspring.

Based on what I’ve learned about the genetic engineering of plants, I’m inclined to say the ramifications could potentially be vast, dire, and completely unexpected.

As a general, broad-strokes rule, it seems few scientists fond of gene-tinkering have a well-rounded or holistic view of living organisms, opting instead to view the human body as a machine. And as demonstrated with the multi-varied problems that have arisen from genetically engineered foods—from the development of superweeds and superpests, to the creation of a never-before-seen organism now linked to miscarriage and infertility—such a view is bound to lead you to the wrong conclusions…

Surprise, Surprise… “Unpredictable Outcomes” Reported

As it turns out, this type of genetic modification, called cytoplasmic transfer, is actually a hot topic among geneticists, but it’s rarely published or discussed in the lay press, if at all—as evidenced by my own surprise when reading this decade-old piece of news.

Many follow-up reports continue to tout the high success of this method of treating infertility. But some, including a book put out by Cambridge Press, warns of the dangers and risks of this procedure. For example, the following excerpts from a report3 delivered during the 2003 World Congress on Controversies in Obstetrics, Gynecology & Infertility in Berlin raises questions about the less than thoughtful implementation of this technology, and some of the problems encountered:

“… Cytoplasmic control of preimplantation development is not a “new” concept, but ooplasm transfer have been amazingly rapidly applied in humans, with relative success, in the absence of extensive research to evaluate the efficacy and the potential risks of the method, resulting in some publications highlighting the potential dangers (Winston and Hardy 2002, DeRycke et al 2002, Templeton 2002), and unpredictable outcomes (Cummins 2001, 2002).

… A frank follow-up of ooplasmic transplantation pregnancies and infants reports that two out of 17 fetuses had an abnormal 45, XO karyotype. The authors assume the hypothesis of a link between chromosomal anomalies and oocytes manipulation, and reveal that one of the babies has been diagnosed at 18 months with Pervasive Developmental Disorder, a spectrum of autism-related diagnoses.” [Emphasis mine]

So it didn’t take long—less than two years, in fact—for reports of “unpredictable outcomes” to crop up. I for one am not surprised. It’s somewhat disconcerting that so much of this research is taking place without open discussion about the ethical questions associated with it.

The US FDA appears to have begun looking at the ethics of ooplasmic transplantation, and in one powerpoint4 it is pointed out that an 18-month-old child born from this procedure has been diagnosed with autism (PDD), and that the incidence of chromosomal anomalies is known to be higher in children born from the procedure than the rate of major congenital abnormalities observed in the natural population.

The document also states that lack of testing and long-term follow-up of the children born from the procedure so far is a significant shortcoming, making evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of the technique very difficult. The genetic modification of humans appears to have been running alongside the genetic engineering of plants, being just a few years behind in terms of the technology being unleashed, and the lack of proper evaluation of health effects is apparently on par as well, which is to say near non-existent…

Could They Create Patentable Humans? Perhaps…

Another horrific side effect that has nothing to do with health per se, is the potential that making this procedure widely available may trigger a “patent” war; meaning these genetically modified humans could become patentable property.

Sound crazy?

You bet! But it’s not outside the realm of possibility. The world is already embroiled in discussions about which genetically engineered life forms can and cannot be patented5, and biotech companies have secured patents on everything from genetically modified seeds to engineered animals of various kinds. Even human genes have already been patented!

As explained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)6:

“The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) grants patents on human genes, which means that the patent holders own the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences, their usage, and their chemical composition. Anyone who makes or uses a patented gene without permission of the patent holder – whether it be for commercial or noncommercial purposes – is committing patent infringement and can be sued by the patent holder for such infringement. Gene patents, like other patents, are granted for 20 years.

For example, Myriad Genetics, a private biotechnology company based in Utah, controls patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes [two genes associated with hereditary breast- and ovarian cancer]. Because of its patents, Myriad has the right to prevent anyone else from testing, studying, or even looking at these genes. It also holds the exclusive rights to any mutations along those genes. No one is allowed to do anything with the BRCA genes without Myriad’s permission.

A 2005 study found that 4,382 of the 23,688 human genes in the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s gene database are explicitly claimed as intellectual property. This means that nearly 20% of human genes are patented. In addition to the BRCA genes, genes associated with numerous diseases, both common and rare, are patented, including Alzheimer’s disease, asthma, some forms of colon cancer, Canavan disease, hemochromatosis, some forms of muscular dystrophy, Long QT Syndrome, and many others.”

If this sounds outrageous, illegal, and nonsensical, it’s because it’s all of those things. The ACLU claims to be engaged in a noble lawsuit against the US Patent and Trademark Office to stop the practice of issuing patents that are contrary to the law, which states only inventions can be patented—not naturally occurring parts of the human body. Still, the precedent has been clearly set. So what’s to stop a company from eventually claiming patent rights on an entire individual?

Human Cloning Next?

According to the featured article7, “altering the human germline—in effect tinkering with the very make-up of our species—is a technique shunned by the vast majority of the world’s scientists. Geneticists fear that one day this method could be used to create new races of humans with extra, desired characteristics such as strength or high intelligence.”

But that’s clearly not the end of the line in terms of where this technology might lead, if it hasn’t already:

“… Jacques Cohen is regarded as a brilliant but controversial scientist who has pushed the boundaries of assisted reproduction technologies,” Mail Online states8. “He developed a technique which allows infertile men to have their own children, by injecting sperm DNA straight into the egg in the lab. Prior to this, only infertile women were able to conceive using IVF.

Last year [2000], Professor Cohen said that his expertise would allow him to clone children—a prospect treated with horror by the mainstream scientific community. ‘It would be an afternoon’s work for one of my students,’ he said, adding that he had been approached by ‘at least three’ individuals wishing to create a cloned child, but had turned down their requests.”

That was then—12 years ago. One can only guess what might have transpired in laboratories such as that of Professor Cohen since then…

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Dr. Mercola

An employee of Mercy Hospital in West St. Louis County, Missouri recently spoke with CNN about her frustrations surrounding their flu shot policy.1

Employees are required to get a flu shot, or they will become ineligible for a raise in 2013, as well as face corrective action in the form of a written warning.

Despite being happy with her job otherwise, this particular employee noted well-founded fears over proven adverse reactions linked to the shot, and feels her personal freedoms are being violated.

It’s a sentiment echoed not only across the United States, but also around the globe, as health care workers are increasingly being asked to get a flu shot against their will – or forfeit their jobs.

Health Care Workers Are Refusing Flu Shots and Are Hesitant to Offer Them

In Switzerland, some health care workers are not only personally refusing to get vaccinated for the flu, but they’re reluctant to offer the vaccine to their patients either. Teaching hospitals in Geneva, Switzerland led a study last year that found many health care workers viewed the seasonal flu as “a benign disease not really requiring any special [prevention] effort.”

Others believe the risks and lack of proven effectiveness raise questions over the flu shot recommendations. As Swissinfo reported:2

“Pascal Büchler is a homeopathic physician in Yverdon-les-Bains and a member of a group that offers “nuanced and critical” thoughts on vaccines.

‘I’m certainly not a dogmatic anti-vaccinist,’ he says. ‘But vaccines against seasonal flu have been shown to be ineffective for elderly people, who are also the greatest risk group.’

A Swiss-German gynecologist explained to swissinfo.ch that he refuses to vaccinate pregnant women against influenza, as ordered by the Federal Office of Public Health, ‘because we cannot rule out the risk of resulting fetal abnormalities.'”

A Needle in a Haystack…

Even if you were to overlook the risk of side effects, which I’ll discuss below, getting a flu shot to prevent the flu is very much like finding a needle in a haystack. There are over 200 viruses that cause influenza and influenza-like illnesses. Both produce the same symptoms, such as fever, aches and pains, headache, cough and runny nose, so the only way a physician can tell what is actually the flu and what is another viral illness is with laboratory testing.

The flu vaccine is, at best, only effective against influenza A and B, which represents only about 10 percent of all circulating viruses.3 This means that even if in the best case scenario you get a flu shot, and it happens to be effective for you, you’re still completely vulnerable to 90 percent of the flu-like viruses that are circulating in your area…

If you happen to come down with symptoms of the flu, it’s actually far more likely that you have a flu-like illness than the actual “flu” for which the flu shot is designed against. And that doesn’t even mean you’re definitely protected against all flu viruses.

Major Medical Journal Questions Flu Drug Tamiflu’s Effectiveness

Tamiflu is one of two drugs (the other is Relenza) that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends for treating the flu. The drug has also been included in a list of “essential medicines” put out by the World Health Organization (WHO).

The CDC claims Tamiflu can shorten the duration of flu symptoms and lower your risk of complications and hospitalization, but a British Medical Journal (BMJ) open data campaign is calling on Roche, the drug’s maker, to release full clinical trial reports to prove it.4

In 2009, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) conducted a major review of available data and found no evidence Tamiflu can prevent healthy people with flu from suffering complications such as pneumonia.5 Tamiflu may shorten the bout of illness by a meager day or so, the investigators said, but it was impossible to know whether it prevents severe disease, because the published data was insufficient. In October 2012, BMJ editor in chief Fiona Godlee sent a letter to Roche board member John Bell,6 noting that the findings in their 2009 report could not be relied upon because:
•Eight of the 10 Tamiflu trials upon which its effectiveness claims were based were never published
•The two that had been published were funded by Roche and authored by Roche employees and Roche-paid external experts

She further noted:

“The Cochrane reviewers now know that there are at least 123 trials of Tamiflu and that the majority (60%) of patient data from Roche Phase 3 completed trials remain unpublished. There are concerns on a number of fronts: the likely overstating of effectiveness and the apparent under-reporting of potentially serious adverse effects.”

Roche made a promise to release full clinical trial reports in 2009, but has yet to do so, hence BMJ’s most recent request for the full data. Meanwhile, the European Medicines Agency is investigating Roche for improper reporting of side effects, including deaths, related to Tamiflu and 18 other drugs.7 Side effects of Tamiflu include convulsions, delirium and delusions. Deaths in children and adults have been reported, as have neuropsychological effects such as altered behavior and nightmares. Other rare side effects such as toxic epidermal necrolysis and blindness have also been reported.

You Might be Surprised by the Science Surrounding Flu Shots’ (Lack of) Effectiveness

The evidence against flu vaccines is rapidly mounting as well. Most people simply assume that flu shots “work,” but even a cursory review of the science shows otherwise. A review published earlier this year, for instance, found that the elderly, in particular, do not appear to receive measureable value from the flu shot,8 which is the same conclusion reached by several previous studies. According to the authors:

“Influenza vaccines can provide moderate protection against virologically confirmed influenza, but such protection is greatly reduced or absent in some seasons. Evidence for protection in adults aged 65 years or older is lacking.”

In essence, if you’re a senior, you’re taking a health risk for a theoretical health benefit that can’t be confirmed and, if you’re a healthy adult, it’s truly a shot in the dark. Trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines also didn’t offer much protection to children over the age of 7, while the effectiveness of inactivated flu vaccine for children under 2 has also been questioned.9 In the latter study, only one study on flu vaccine in children under 2 could be found, despite the fact that it is now a standard recommendation. The author noted:10

“It was surprising to find only one study of inactivated vaccine in children under two years, given current recommendations to vaccinate healthy children from six months old in the USA and Canada.”

Further, the notion that giving health care workers the flu shot will protect hospital patients from the flu is another unproven case of wishful thinking. A Cochrane Database Review—which is the gold standard for assessing the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of commonly used medical interventions – concluded:11

“There is no credible evidence that vaccination of healthy people under the age of 60, who are HCWs [health care workers] caring for the elderly, affects influenza complications in those cared for.”

As for the general adult population, Cochrane published the following bombshell conclusion last year:12

“Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission. WARNING: This review includes 15 out of 36 trials funded by industry (four had no funding declaration). An earlier systematic review of 274 influenza vaccine studies published up to 2007 found industry funded studies were published in more prestigious journals and cited more than other studies independently from methodological quality and size. Studies funded from public sources were significantly less likely to report conclusions favorable to the vaccines.

The review demonstrated that reliable scientific evidence confirming that influenza vaccines are effective is thin and there is plenty of reason to suspect that there may be a manipulation of conclusions when the studies are funded by drug companies. The content and conclusions of this review should be interpreted in light of this finding.”

No One is Exempt From Flu Shot Risks

Forcing a health care worker to receive a flu shot or face disciplinary action is not only an assault to their personal freedom, especially given the startling lack of proven effectiveness, but it’s also a potential risk to their health.

While infants and young children are at greatest risk, NO ONE is exempt from the potential serious complications of vaccination, one of which is Guillaine-Barre syndrome (GBS). In the video above, Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), interviews a Connecticut artist and her mother, a former professor of nursing, who developed GBS after getting a seasonal flu shot in 2008 and today is permanently disabled with total body paralysis.

This family has chosen to share their heartbreaking story to help those who have had the same experience feel less alone, and to educate others about what it means to be vaccine injured. What happened to this family is a poignant reminder of just how important it is to make well-informed decisions about vaccinations.

The inactivated influenza vaccine has been associated with development of GBS since 1976, when an inactivated “swine flu” shot given to millions of healthy Americans caused GBS in several hundred previously healthy Americans and there were 30 deaths.13

Not to mention, research published in the Journal of Virology14 in November of last year also confirmed that the seasonal flu vaccine may actually weaken children’s immune systems and increase their chances of getting sick from influenza viruses not included in the vaccine, which is to say all but three! And in September, the Canadian press broke the story that new research confirms initial findings that the flu vaccine appeared to actually increase people’s risk of getting sick with H1N1 “swine flu,” and cause more serious bouts of illness to boot.

Your Right to Choose is Under Attack

It is not only health care workers who are being pressured into making a health care decision they oftentimes don’t agree with…

In the states of Connecticut and New Jersey, mandates are already in place that force parents to give their 6-month-old babies a flu vaccine or be banned from daycare. And state health department officials are increasingly joining with medical trade association lobbyists in many states to severely restrict or eliminate medical, religious and conscientious belief vaccine exemptions for all children and their parents, notes Barbara Loe Fisher.

The partnership between government health agencies and big Pharma, based on ideology, profit-making and bad science, is moving closer and closer to discriminating against those who want to exercise their right to informed consent and abstaining from participating in an ever-expanding vaccine schedule. This is a pressing issue for health care workers in the immediacy, but it’s one that is quickly snowballing into the general population as well.

Is Diabetes Triggered by the Flu Virus?

Although most cases of diabetes (type 2) are caused by diet and lifestyle choices that cause your cells to become insulin resistant, some cases of diabetes (type 1) occur when the immune system destroys pancreatic cells needed to produce insulin.

Because type 1 diabetes often seems to “appear” after an infection, it’s been suggested a virus may trigger the disease, and cause the immune dysfunction that leads to diabetes. Now researchers have determined that the flu virus may play a role in causing both pancreatitis and diabetes in humans and animals.15 The press is using this as another scare-tactic for why you should get the flu shot… but rest assured, there is another way.

How to Stay Flu-Free, Naturally

Fortunately, avoiding a serious case of the flu doesn’t require a flu vaccination. By following these simple guidelines, you can help keep your immune system in optimal working order so that you’re far less likely to acquire the infection to begin with or, if you do get sick with the flu, you are better prepared to move through it without complications and soon return to good health.
•Optimize your vitamin D levels. As I’ve previously reported, optimizing your vitamin D levels is one of the absolute best strategies for avoiding infections of ALL kinds, and vitamin D deficiency may actually be the true culprit behind the seasonality of the flu – not the flu virus itself. This is probably the single most important and least expensive action you can take. Regularly monitor your vitamin D levels to confirm your levels are within the therapeutic range of 50-70 ng/ml.

Ideally, you’ll want to get all your vitamin D from sun exposure or a safe tanning bed, but as a last resort you can take an oral vitamin D3 supplement. According to the latest review by Carole Baggerly (Grassrootshealth.org), adults need about 8,000 IU’s a day.
•Avoid Sugar and Processed Foods. Sugar impairs the function of your immune system almost immediately, and as you likely know, a healthy immune system is one of the most important keys to fighting off viruses and other illness. Be aware that sugar (typically in the form of high fructose corn syrup) is present in foods you may not suspect, like ketchup and fruit juice.
•Optimize Your Gut Flora. The best way to do this is avoid apply the step above by avoiding sugars, processed foods and most grains, and replacing them with healthy fats and taking regular amounts of fermented foods, which can radically improve the function of your immune system
•Get Enough Rest. Just like it becomes harder for you to get your daily tasks done if you’re tired, if your body is overly fatigued it will be harder for it to fight the flu. Be sure to check out my article Guide to a Good Night’s Sleep for some great tips to help you get quality rest.
•Have Effective Tools to Address Stress. We all face some stress every day, but if stress becomes overwhelming then your body will be less able to fight off the flu and other illness. If you feel that stress is taking a toll on your health, consider using an energy psychology tool such as the Emotional Freedom Technique, which is remarkably effective in relieving stress associated with all kinds of events, from work to family to trauma.
•Get Regular Exercise. When you exercise, you increase your circulation and your blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of finding an illness before it spreads. Be sure to incorporate high-intensity interval exercises like Peak Fitness into your routine.
•Take a Good Source of Animal-Based Omega-3 Fats. Increase your intake of healthy and essential fats like the omega-3 found in krill oil, which is crucial for maintaining health. It is also vitally important to avoid damaged omega-6 oils that are trans fats and in processed foods as it will seriously damage your immune response.
•Wash Your Hands. Washing your hands will decrease your likelihood of spreading a virus to your nose, mouth or other people. Be sure you don’t use antibacterial soap for this – antibacterial soaps are completely unnecessary, and they cause far more harm than good. Instead, identify a simple chemical-free soap that you can switch your family to.
•Tried and True Hygiene Measures. In addition to washing your hands regularly, cover your mouth and nose when you cough or sneeze. If possible, avoid close contact with those, who are sick and, if you are sick, avoid close contact with those who are well.
•Use Natural Antibiotics. Examples include oil of oregano and garlic. These work like broad-spectrum antibiotics against bacteria, viruses, and protozoa in your body. And unlike pharmaceutical antibiotics, they do not appear to lead to resistance.
•Avoid Hospitals. I’d recommend you stay away from hospitals unless you’re having an emergency and need expert medical care, as hospitals are prime breeding grounds for infections of all kinds. The best place to get plenty of rest and recover from illness that is not life threatening is usually in the comfort of your own home.

Protect Your Right to Informed Consent and Vaccine Exemptions

With all the uncertainty surrounding the safety and efficacy of vaccines, it’s critical to protect your right to informed consent and to abstain from vaccinating by exercising vaccine exemptions in state public health laws. The best way to do this is to get personally involved with your state legislators and the leaders in your community.

THINK GLOBALLY, ACT LOCALLY.

Mass vaccination policies are made at the federal level but vaccine laws are made at the state level. It is at the state level where your action to protect your vaccine choice rights can have the greatest impact. It is critical for EVERYONE to get involved now in standing up for the legal right to make vaccine choices in America because those choices are being threatened by lobbyists representing drug companies, medical trade associations and public health officials, who are trying to persuade legislators to strip all vaccine exemptions from public health laws.

Signing up for NVIC’s free Advocacy Portal at www.NVICAdvocacy.org gives you immediate, easy access to your own state legislators on your Smart Phone or computer so you can make your voice heard. You will be kept up-to-date on the latest state bills threatening your vaccine choices and get practical, useful information to help you become an effective vaccine choice advocate in your own community. Also, when national vaccine issues come up, you will have the up-to-date information and call to action items you need at your fingertips.

So please, as your first step, sign up for the NVIC Advocacy Portal.

Share Your Story with the Media and People You Know

If you or a family member has suffered a serious vaccine reaction, injury or death, please talk about it. If we don’t share information and experiences with each other, everybody feels alone and afraid to speak up. Write a letter to the editor if you have a different perspective on a vaccine story that appears in your local newspaper. Make a call in to a radio talk show that is only presenting one side of the vaccine story.

I must be frank with you; you have to be brave because you might be strongly criticized for daring to talk about the “other side” of the vaccine story. Be prepared for it and have the courage to not back down. Only by sharing our perspective and what we know to be true about vaccination will the public conversation about vaccination open up so people are not afraid to talk about it.

We cannot allow the drug companies and medical trade associations funded by drug companies or public health officials promoting forced use of a growing list of vaccines to dominate the conversation about vaccination. The vaccine injured cannot be swept under the carpet and treated like nothing more than “statistically acceptable collateral damage” of national one-size-fits-all mandatory vaccination policies that put way too many people at risk for injury and death. We shouldn’t be treating people like guinea pigs instead of human beings.

Internet Resources Where You Can Learn More

I encourage you to visit the following web pages on the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) website at www.NVIC.org:
•NVIC Memorial for Vaccine Victims: View descriptions and photos of children and adults, who have suffered vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths. If you or your child experiences an adverse vaccine event, please consider posting and sharing your story here.
•If You Vaccinate, Ask 8 Questions: Learn how to recognize vaccine reaction symptoms and prevent vaccine injuries.
•Vaccine Freedom Wall: View or post descriptions of harassment and sanctions by doctors, employers, school and health officials for making independent vaccine choices.

Connect with Your Doctor or Find a New One that Will Listen and Care

If your pediatrician or doctor refuses to provide medical care to you or your child unless you agree to get vaccines you don’t want, I strongly encourage you to have the courage to find another doctor. Harassment, intimidation, and refusal of medical care is becoming the modus operandi of the conventional medical establishment in an effort to stop the change in attitude of many parents about vaccinations after they become truly educated about health and vaccination.

However, there is hope.

At least 15 percent of young doctors recently polled admit that they’re starting to adopt a more individualized approach to vaccinations in direct response to the vaccine safety concerns of parents. It is good news that there is a growing number of smart young doctors, who prefer to work as partners with parents in making personalized vaccine decisions for children, including delaying vaccinations or giving children fewer vaccines on the same day or continuing to provide medical care for those families, who decline use of one or more vaccines.

So take the time to locate a doctor, who treats you with compassion and respect and is willing to work with you to do what is right for your child.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.

By Dr. Mercola

Propolis, the “caulk” honeybees use to patch holes in their hives, has been used as a natural remedy since ancient times, treating ills ranging from sore throats and burns to allergies.

New research has revealed another exciting use for this seemingly miraculous substance, this time in the fight against cancer.

Propolis Slows Tumor Growth

Propolis has a number of well-known therapeutic properties, including potent antioxidant and anti-microbial action, and healing, analgesic, anesthetic, and anti-inflammatory properties. In the hive, bees use it as a disinfectant against bacteria and viruses, helping to seal cracks and “embalm” invaders that are too large to carry out.

It’s been used for thousands of years in folk medicine, but despite its plethora of active components, research on this compound, and therefore its modern medical uses, is limited.

Researchers from the University of Chicago Medical Center, intrigued by propolis’ anti-cancer potential, decided to look at one of its bioactive components, caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE), and its impact on human prostate cancer cells.

In cells grown in a lab, even small doses of CAPE slowed the growth of tumor cells. And when low oral doses were given to mice with prostate tumors, tumor growth slowed by 50 percent! What’s more, feeding CAPE to mice daily caused the tumors to stop growing, although they returned when the CAPE was removed from their diets.

This suggests the propolis compound works by impacting signaling networks that control cancerous cell growth, rather than by killing the cells directly. However, there are at least four studies on propolis’ apoptotic properties, indicating that technically it is capable of directly killing cancer cells, including prostate cancer, melanoma and more, as well.1

This is not the first time propolis has shown promise in treating cancer. In 2009, propolis was found to suppress the growth of neurofibromatosis-associated tumors (tumors on nerve tissue) by blocking PAK1 signaling. Researchers noted:2

“Since more than 70% of human cancers such as breast and prostate cancers require the kinase PAK1 for their growth, it is quite possible that GPE [green propolis extract] could be potentially useful for the treatment of these cancers, as is Bio 30 [a CAPE-based propolis extract].”

Propolis Has Powerful Immune-Modulating, Anti-Inflammatory Properties

What makes natural compounds so exciting, and often so powerful, is that they don’t simply exhibit one therapeutic action the way, say, most drugs work. Instead, they contain numerous bioactive components that may exert dozens of beneficial actions within your body. This appears to be the case with propolis, which has been found to play a role in over 80 conditions, including:3

Inflammation

Ulcers

Radiation damage

Herpes

Warts

Periodontitis

Ear infections

Respiratory tract infections

Flu

Cataracts

Oxidative stress

Staph infection

Writing in Clinical Reviews in Allergy and Immunology, researchers expanded on some of propolis’ potential effects:4

“Propolis, a waxy substance produced by the honeybee, has been adopted as a form of folk medicine since ancient times. It has a wide spectrum of alleged applications including potential anti-infection and anticancer effects. Many of the therapeutic effects can be attributed to its immunomodulatory functions. The composition of propolis can vary according to the geographic locations from where the bees obtained the ingredients.

Two main immunopotent chemicals have been identified as caffeic acid phenethyl ester (CAPE) and artepillin C. Propolis, CAPE, and artepillin C have been shown to exert summative immunosuppressive function on T lymphocyte subsets but paradoxically activate macrophage function.

On the other hand, they also have potential antitumor properties by different postulated mechanisms such as suppressing cancer cells proliferation via its anti-inflammatory effects; decreasing the cancer stem cell populations; blocking specific oncogene signaling pathways; exerting antiangiogenic effects; and modulating the tumor microenvironment.

The good bioavailability by the oral route and good historical safety profile makes propolis an ideal adjuvant agent for future immunomodulatory or anticancer regimens.”

Protein Intake Also Crucial for Cancers

Earlier this month I interviewed Dr. Ron Rosedale for several hours. He is one of the first physicians in the U.S. that started measuring leptin levels clinically and was far ahead of the curve on this one. In our interview, he helped me understand the major importance that excessive protein intake can have on cancer growth.

The mTOR pathway is short for mammalian target of rapamycin. This pathway is ancient but relatively recently appreciated and has only been known for less than 20 years. Odds are very high your doctor was never taught this is medical school and isn’t even aware of it. Many new cancer drugs are actually being targeted to use this pathway. Drugs using this pathway have also been given to animals to radically extend their lifespan. But you don’t have to use drugs to get this pathway to work for you.

You can biohack your body and merely restrict your protein intake and replace the decreased protein with healthy fats as this will provide virtually identical benefits as these dangerous and expensive drugs.
Eating excessive protein can be an additional synergistically powerful mechanism. Dr. Rosedale believes that when you consume protein in levels higher than one gram of protein per kilogram of LEAN body mass you can activate the mTOR pathway, which will radically increase your risk of cancers. It is very easy to consume excess protein and my guess is that most people reading this are. I know I was, and as a result of this new insight I have reduced my protein intake by about half.

To determine your lean body mass find out your percent body fat and subtract from 100. So if you are 20% body fat you would have 80% lean body mass. Just multiply that times your current weight to get lean body mass. For most people this means restricting protein intake from 35 to 75 grams. Pregnant women and those working out extensively need about 25% more protein though.

Of course when you reduce protein you need to replace it with other calories, so the key is to replace the lost calories with high-quality fats such as avocados, butter, coconut oil, olives, olive oil, nuts and eggs. It is also very helpful to avoid eating anything for three hours before going to bed as this allows you to have relatively low blood sugars while you are sleeping. This is another good trick to move your body to fat burning mode.

Nearly everyone is primarily in carb burning mode because of the amount of carbohydrate content that they consume. The beauty of shifting over to fat burning mode is that it virtually eliminates hunger. Intermittent fasting is one way to help achieve this, but radically cutting back on non-vegetable carbs is also very important. Coconut oil is particularly useful to use in making the transition to fat burning mode as it is primarily short and medium chain fats which break down very quickly and can be used as an energy source which is important for countering the decreased energy and other physical challenges that many encounter in the several weeks it typically takes to make the transition to fat burning mode.

Other Natural Remedies Also Show Cancer Promise

One of the reasons why conventional cancer treatment is such a dismal failure in the United States is because it relies on chemotherapy. Chemotherapy drugs are, by their very nature, extremely toxic and typically work against your body’s natural ability to fight cancer, e.g. destroying host immunity instead of supporting it.

One of the biggest drawbacks to chemotherapy is the fact that it destroys healthy cells throughout your body right along with cancer cells, a “side effect” that often leads to accelerated death, not healing.

Another devastating side effect of chemotherapy is the way it actually supports the more chemo-resistant and malignant cell subpopulations within tumors (e.g. cancer stem cells), both killing the more benign cells and/or quiescent cells within the tumor that keep it slow-growing, or even harmless.

As a result, this unleashes a more aggressive, treatment-resistant type of cancer to wreak havoc on your body.

Like propolis, a handful of natural compounds have been discovered that show promise for treating cancer without such toxic effects. Some of these even exhibit an effect called “selective cytotoxicity,” which means they are able to kill cancer cells while leaving healthy cells and tissue unharmed, and even benefited one such compound is bromelain, an enzyme that can be extracted from pineapple stems. Research published in the journal Planta Medica found that bromelain was superior to the chemotherapy drug 5-fluorauracil in treating cancer in an animal study.5

Researchers stated:

“This antitumoral effect [of bromelain] was superior to that of 5-FU [5-fluorouracil], whose survival index was approximately 263 %, relative to the untreated control.”

What makes this impact particularly impressive is that the bromelain worked without causing additional harm to the animals. The chemo drug 5-fluorauracil, on the other hand, has a relatively unsuccessful and dangerous track record despite being used for nearly 40 years. Selective cytotoxicity is indeed a property that is only found among natural compounds; no chemotherapy drug yet developed is capable of this effect. Aside from bromelain, other examples of natural compounds that have been found to kill cancer cells without harming healthy cells include:
•Vitamin C: Dr. Ronald Hunninghake carried out a 15-year research project called RECNAC (cancer spelled backwards). His groundbreaking research in cell cultures showed that vitamin C was selectively cytotoxic against cancer cells.
•Eggplant extract: Solasodine rhamnosyl glycosides (BEC), which are a class of compounds extracted from plants of the Solanaceae family, such as eggplant, tomato, potato, Bell peppers, and tobacco, can also impact only cancerous cells leaving normal cells alone. Eggplant extract cream appears to be particularly useful in treating skin cancer. Dr. Bill E. Cham, a leading researcher in this area, explains:

“The mode of action of SRGs [glycoalkaloids solasodine rhamnosy glycosides (BEC)] is unlike any current antineoplastic [anti-tumor] agent. Specific receptors for the SRGs present only on cancer cells but not normal cells are the first step of events that lead to apoptosis in cancer cells only, and this may explain why during treatment the cancer cells were being eliminated and normal cells were replacing the killed cancer cells with no scar tissue being formed.”

•Turmeric (Curcumin Extract): Of all the natural cancer fighters out there, this spice has been the most intensely researched for exhibiting selective cytotoxicity.6 Remarkably, in a 2011 study published in the Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, rats administered curcumin, the primary polyphenol in turmeric, saw a decrease in experimentally-induced brain tumors in 9 out of 11 treated, while noting that the curcumin did not affect the viability of brain cells “suggesting that curcumin selectively targets the transformed [cancerous] cells.”7

Natural Strategies for Cancer Prevention

When it comes to cancer and other chronic diseases, effective prevention trumps progressive treatments in my eyes. I believe you can virtually eliminate your risk of ever developing cancer (and radically improve your chances of recovering from cancer if you currently have it) by following some relatively simple risk reduction strategies—all of which help promote a healthful biological environment in which your cells can thrive and combat disease naturally.
•Optimize your vitamin D levels.
•Reduce or eliminate your processed food, fructose and grain carbohydrate intake.
•Control your fasting insulin and leptin levels. Normalizing your insulin levels is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer, and improved insulin and leptin control is the natural outcome of reducing or eliminating fructose, grains, and processed foods from your diet.
•Normalize your ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 fats by taking a high-quality krill oil and reducing your intake of most processed vegetable oils.
•Get regular exercise. One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells, which thrive on sugar-based metabolism (anaerobic glycolysis). Controlling insulin levels is one of the most powerful ways to reduce your cancer risks. Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. Your immune system is your first line of defense against everything from minor illnesses like a cold right up to devastating, life-threatening diseases like cancer.
The trick about exercise, though, is understanding how to use it as a precise tool. This ensures you are getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength and flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels. If you have limited time, high-intensity Peak Fitness exercises are your best bet but ideally you should have a good strength-training program as well.

•Get regular, good-quality sleep.
•Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
•Limit your exposure and provide protection for yourself from EMF produced by cell phone towers, base stations, cell phones and WiFi stations. On May 31, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), declared that cell phones are “possibly carcinogenic to humans.”
•Avoid frying or charbroiling your food. Boil, poach or steam your foods instead.
•Have a tool to permanently reprogram the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. Energy psychology seems to be one of the best approaches and my particular favorite tool, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
•Eat at least one-third of your diet in the form of raw food.

If you like what you read, please consider donating to help support my blog, even as little as $5 will help.